Life and Times of Washington, Volume 2 / Revised, Enlarged, and Enriched

by John Frederick Schroeder; Benson John Lossing

During the recess of Congress, Washington twice visited Mount Vernon, once for a few days in April (1793), and again, for two or three weeks in June and July. On the 4th of July he was present at the celebration of the national anniversary by the citizens of Alexandria. He was prevented from spending more time at Mount Vernon by the pressure of public business, which was now assuming a new and very unpleasant aspect.

During Washington's short visit to Mount Vernon in April, he received a letter from Jefferson, dated April 7th, (1793), informing him that France had declared war against England and Holland. Instantly perceiving the danger of the United States becoming involved in the hostilities of these nations, Washington, on the 12th of April, wrote in reply to Jefferson: "War having actually commenced between France and Great Britain, it behooves the government of this country to use every means in its power to prevent the citizens thereof from embroiling us with either of those powers, by endeavoring to maintain a strict neutrality. I therefore require that you will give the subject mature consideration, that such measures as shall be deemed most likely to effect this desirable purpose may be adopted without delay, for I have understood that vessels are already designated as privateers, and are preparing accordingly. Such other measures as may be necessary for us to pursue against events, which it may not be in our power to avoid or control, you will also think of, and lay them before me on my arrival in Philadelphia; for which place I shall set out tomorrow, but will leave it to the advices which I may receive tonight by the post, to determine whether it is to be by the direct route or by the one I proposed to come, that is, by Reading."

The tenor of this letter shows that Washington was fully aware of the importance of the emergency in our foreign relations which had now arisen, and the result showed that, as usual, he was fully equal to the occasion. The difficulty of the position arose from the fact already adverted to—that of the two great political parties then existing, one was in favor of direct aid to the French revolutionists, while the other, desirous to remain neutral while the European contest was going on, was charged by its opponents with partiality to England. It remained for Washington, by that decision of character and inflexible firmness for which he was so remarkable, to inaugurate that system of neutrality and noninterference in the affairs of Europe, which has ever since constituted the foreign policy of this country.

On his return to Philadelphia, Washington summoned a meeting of the Cabinet, at the same time sending to each member a series of questions to be considered as preparatory to the meeting. These questions, thirteen in number, all referred to the measures to be taken by the President in consequence of the revolution which had overthrown the French monarchy; of the new organization of a republic in that country; of the appointment of a minister from that republic to the United States, and of the war declared by the National Convention of France against Great Britain. The first of these questions, says Mr. Adams, {3} was, whether a proclamation should issue to prevent interferences of our citizens in the war, and whether the proclamation should or should not contain a declaration of neutrality. The second was, whether a minister from the Republic of France should be received. Upon these two questions the opinion of the Cabinet was unanimous in the affirmative—that a proclamation of neutrality should issue, and that the minister from the French Republic should be received. But upon all the other questions, the opinions of the four heads of the departments were equally divided. They were indeed questions of difficulty and delicacy equal to their importance. No less than whether, after a revolution in France annihilating the government with which the treaties of alliance and of commerce had been contracted, the treaties themselves were to be considered binding as between the nations, and particularly whether the stipulation of guarantee to France of her possessions in the West Indies, was binding upon the United States to the extent of imposing upon them the obligation of taking side with France in the war. As the members of the Cabinet disagreed in their opinions upon these questions, and as there was no immediate necessity for deciding them, the further consideration of them was postponed, and they were never afterwards resumed. While these discussions of the Cabinet of Washington were held, the minister plenipotentiary from the French republic arrived in this country. He had been appointed by the National Convention of France, which had dethroned, tried, sentenced to death, and executed Louis the Sixteenth, abolished the monarchy, and proclaimed a republic one and indivisible, under the auspices of liberty, equality, and fraternity, as thenceforth the government of France. By all the rest of Europe they were then considered as revolted subjects in rebellion against their sovereign, and were not recognized as constituting an independent government.

Hamilton and Knox were of opinion that the minister from France should be conditionally received, with the reservation of the question whether the United States were still bound to fulfill the stipulations of the treaties. They inclined to the opinion that treaties themselves were annulled by the revolution of the government in France—an opinion to which the example of the revolutionary government had given plausibility by declaring some of the treaties made by the abolished monarchy no longer binding upon the nation. Mr. Hamilton thought, also, that France had no just claim to the fulfillment of the stipulation of guarantee, because that stipulation, and the whole treaty of alliance in which it was contained, were professedly, and on the face of them, only defensive, while the war which the French convention had declared against Great Britain, was on the part of France offensive, the first declaration having been issued by her—that the United States were at all events absolved from the obligation of the guarantee by their inability to perform it, and that under the constitution of the United States the interpretation of treaties, and the obligations resulting from them, were within the competency of the executive department, at least concurrently with the Legislature. It does not appear that these opinions were debated or contested in the Cabinet. By their unanimous advice the proclamation was issued, and it was decided to receive a minister plenipotentiary of the French republic. Thus the executive administration did assume and exercise the power of recognizing a revolutionary foreign government as a legitimate sovereign, with whom the ordinary diplomatic relations were to be entertained. But the proclamation contained no allusion whatever to the United States and France, nor of course to the article of guarantee or its obligations.

Whatever doubts may have been entertained by a large portion of people of the right of the executive to acknowledge a new and revolutionary government, not recognized by any other sovereign State, or of the sound policy of receiving, without waiting for the sanction of Congress, a minister from a republic which had commenced her career by putting to death the King whom she had dethroned, and which had rushed into war with almost all the rest of Europe, no manifestation of such doubts was publicly made. A current of popular favor sustained the French revolution, at that stage of its progress, which nothing could resist, and far from indulging any question of the right of the President to recognize a new revolutionary government, by receiving from it the credentials which none but sovereigns can grant, the American people would, at that moment, have scarcely endured an instant of hesitation on the part of the President, which should have delayed for an hour the reception of the minister from the republic of France. But the proclamation enjoining neutrality upon the people of the United States, indirectly counteracted the torrent of partiality in favor of France, and was immediately assailed with intemperate violence in many of the public journals. The right of the executive to issue any proclamation of neutrality was fiercely and pertinaciously denied as a usurpation of legislative authority, and in that particular case it was charged with forestalling and prematurely deciding the question whether the United States were bound, by the guarantee to France of her West India possessions in the treaty of alliance, to take side in the war with her against Great Britain—and with deciding it against France.

The proclamation of neutrality was signed on the 22d of April, 1793, and was immediately published. "This measure," says Mr. Sparks, "both in regard to its character and its consequences, was one of the most important of Washington's administration. It was the basis of a system by which the intercourse with foreign nations was regulated, and which was rigidly adhered to. In fact, it was the only step that could have saved the United States from being drawn into the vortex of European wars, which raged with so much violence for a long time afterward. Its wisdom and its good effects are now so obvious, on a calm review of past events, that one is astonished at the opposition it met with, and the strifes it enkindled, even after making due allowance for the passions and prejudices which had hitherto been at work in producing discord and divisions."

The proclamation of neutrality furnished the first occasion which was thought a fit one for openly assaulting a character, around which the affections of the people had thrown an armor theretofore deemed sacred, and for directly criminating the conduct of the President himself. It was only by opposing passions to passions, by bringing the feeling in favor of France into conflict with those in favor of the chief magistrate, that the enemies of his administration could hope to obtain the victory.

For a short time the opponents of this measure treated it with some degree of delicacy. The opposition prints occasionally glanced at the executive, considered all governments, including that of the United States, as naturally hostile to the liberty of the people, and ascribed to this disposition the combination of European governments against France, and the apathy with which this combination was contemplated by the executive. At the same time the most vehement declamations were published for the purpose of inflaming the resentments of the people against Britain; of enhancing the obligations of America to France; of confirming the opinions that the coalition of European monarchs was directed not less against the United States than against Great Britain, and that those who did not avow this sentiment were the friends of that coalition, and equally the enemies of America and France.

These publications, in the first instance sufficiently bitter, quickly assumed a highly increased degree of acrimony.